October 11, 2010

Said Ann Coulter in 2006, quoted today, by Mickey Kaus, who's defending her against the NYT, which has a big article on her saying she's "taking some surprising new positions" now that "the Tea Party movement have stolen much of her thunder." One of the supposedly "surprising new positions" she's taken is pro-gay. Mickey says:

Coulter has a whole chapter in her [2007] book If Democrats Had Any Brains They'd Be Republicans on why gays should join the GOP. The chapter is called "No Gays Left Behind!"... Pretty shrewd of her to realize in 2007 that in two years the Tea Parties would rise up and steal her "thunder"—so she'd better start going for the gays!

39 comments:

Again, if gays would get past their "any one who doesn't believe in gay marrage as an absolute position, is the equivalent of gay bashing gay hatred" they might realize that most people simply are not out to get them. THey just want to maintain marriage. And the more open minded of them, recoginzing that, even though gays were not part of the equation when marriage was formed, still want to allow for gays to be in a relationship that honors their commitment and provides them benefits. Just not marriage.Yet no, those people are the Taliban, the equivalent of the people who went into the Stonewall gay bar in Manhattan recently and beat up gays.

"even though gays were not part of the equation when marriage was formed, still want to allow for gays to be in a relationship that honors their commitment and provides them benefits. Just not marriage."

What's the big deal about the word marriage? If I understand jr, they're saying that the gays can have all of the legal aspects of marriage, but just not the word.

1) If they have all the rights, why not let them call it marriage?

2) Wouldn't there be a lot of logistic complications when you give all the rights while withholding the word 'marriage?' Do you need to open up every single law that deals w/ marriage and add 'and the quasi-married gays' to every reference to married folks? It seems like it'd be easier to simply say 'now the gays can get married.' Then, all the rights would follow. Even so, I can imagine that the specific laws relating to the marriage process will need to be changed for situations where there are two wives or two husbands. But, still it seems like it'd be logistically easier to pass on the legal rights of marriage by passing on the term along w/ the rights.

Anyone in favor of a conservative, limited government philosophy doesn't have to hold an official position on gay rights because limiting or granting such rights aren't within the legitimate scope of government. As I've argued many times before, marriage of any kind is also not, in my opinion, within the legitimate scope of the government to regulate.

The natural home for gay people, indeed any people who value their liberty, is (in Meade's elegant formulation) the conservative protection of the liberal foundations of our government. The Democrat party has for years been the default party of gay people because of the Republican party's misguided attempt to "socialize" religious and moral doctrine, just as the left wishes to "socialize" other aspects of life which shouldn't be under governmental control. The Democrats have, of course, taken advantage of the legitimate fears gay people harbor of State-enforced moral doctrine in order to push their own terrifying version of State-enforced morality, such as socialized health care, monstrous debt and misguided and ineffective environmental legislation.

There is no reason that people should have to choose between slavery to socialism and slavery to government-enforced morality.

The so-called champions of limited government and fiscal responsibility need to understand that pandering to the "socialize morality" sentiment will destroy one of the last chances we have to keep the vestiges of our liberty from sinking forever in an ocean of debt, central control, regulation, surveillance and insolvency.

jr565, is your idea of "marriage" so fragile that you require the secular, armed State to enforce it?

To me, that's just socialized religion.

To me, the State doesn't and shouldn't have any right to countermand the doctrines or beliefs of religious institutions, whether they wish to perform "gay marriages" or not. To force a church to perform or not to perform legal unions of two people is beyond the purview of the government's legitimate power.

Ann Coulter's problem started with her legal training that caused her to use facts instead of cartoon like liberal's fairy tales. Showing such disrespect to the Mind Control Command's story lines always carries severe penalties. That makes Ann into a monster like King Kong in the liberals' eyes. Strangely they used to run away from her and refuse to acknowledge her existence, but something must have changed recently over at Mind Control Command, because Ann is suddenly a hot property just because she slams Obama so hard, like she always has. Nobody likes Obama anymore.

jr565, is your idea of "marriage" so fragile that you require the secular, armed State to enforce it?

To me, that's just socialized religion.

To me, the State doesn't and shouldn't have any right to countermand the doctrines or beliefs of religious institutions, whether they wish to perform "gay marriages" or not. To force a church to perform or not to perform legal unions of two people is beyond the purview of the government's legitimate power.

And yet it is the homosexuals who are looking to the state to ratify their legal positions of righthood to marriage. You may not want to force a church through government sanction to legal unions or marriages and neither do I, but at the same time you can't speak out of one side of your mouth on what you don't want the government to do, while a small subset of people, while citizens, try to force the government to give them rights, they never lost or some might say, no one has ever had from the other side of your mouth.

What was the most serene period in the last 110 years? I would go for 1946- 1963 or so would rank right up there. If we take a clue from that period, we should elect a president like Truman or Ike or JFK who did not have obvious huge egos, were not blowhards and were experienced.

I was sure that, in the past, I've read your comments on gay marriage, but I never realized that you were against state sanctioned marriage for gays and non-gays.

In your perfect world, built on conservative values (as you define them), why do you oppose the state allowing special rights (e.g. the ability to quit claim property w/o excise tax) to married folks?

BTW, this is not a hypothetical situation. I know some lesbians who ended up paying approximately twenty thousand dollar to the state when one of the gals was added to the title for a property that was only in the name of the other gal. If they were married they would have paid zero dollars. In your world where the state doesn't allow special rules for married folks (either gay or not) should a straight couple be forced to pay this money when they join together in their non-state-approved marriage?

"should a straight couple be forced to pay this money when they join together in their non-state-approved marriage?"

No or yes. How about the novel idea that we all are treated the same regardless of who we say we love. Everyone pays or nobody does. Why should singles pay just because we don't choose to lie to someone and tell them we'll love them forever.

Not to speak for Palladian, but an educated guess says he supports the right of all of us to engage in a civil union contract with the person of our choice, as opposed to the state defining your 'marriage' contract. After all, isn't 'marriage' a religious ceremony and isn't separation of church & state the holiest of the holy?

It was Washington were the excise tax is 1.78%. And, yes this does mean that these folks are living comfortably. But, they don't make more than eighteen million a year, like you do.

No, I wouldn't object. If you look at my first comment in this thread you'll see that my biggest concern is finding the most logistically simple and thorough way to give all the rights (and legal requirements) of marriage to gay couples.

In fact, if this could be done w/o using the term 'marriage' I'd be fine w/ that, even though I know many gay folks wouldn't be. Like I said in my first comment: it's just a word. So, I don't think any side of the issue should be hung up on the word.

BTW, before I witnessed this experience regarding the lesbians and the excise tax I was not much in favor of gay marriage, although I wasn't much against it either.

I was just thinking that it’s good to see conservatives laughing again. We were so dour & pissed off during the Bush administration. Not blaming Bush or Rove for this. There was something wrong at the grassroots level. In 2008, the focus was on war-hero McCain, true Chrustian Huckabee, all 3-legs Romney & principled libertarian Paul. What a bunch of uptight douches we were. GOP would not nominate a Robert Gates for president.

SteveOrr:I have to admit I am still an uptight douche. I gotta stick with what I do best. Heh.

But my question was serious. I was reading a list of presidents [in my pocket constitution] and trying to guess during which presidency were the times most settled and prosperous that you never even heard from the president [so he golfed a lot but most Americans didn't know it or care about it].

Palladian: I still don't understand why gays don't sue the govt because social security discriminates against unmarried people. It's like the gay lobby has decided to avoid a battle within its own constituency [Dem party] and instead go for the brass ring of marriage. I believe incremental victories would get them to the same end zone evenually.

“What's the big deal about the word marriage? If I understand jr, they're saying that the gays can have all of the legal aspects of marriage, but just not the word.”

10/11/10 6:47 PM

That’s why “civil unions” (or any other Trojan horse) are just as unacceptable as “gay marriage.”

No gay marriage means no gay marriage.

Her new career as fag hag notwithstanding, I still consider Ann Coulter my spiritual sister. But something’s gotta give. Either she’ll have to renounce her principles, or the gays’ll renounce her. Like Moslems and Marxists, gays today require total submission.

I can see at least one area where gay marriage law does make sense and that is survival benefits. And just as I settled on that as my firm position I get in the mail the present update to the FRB benefit package. I note that the new version extends the exact same benefit package including survival benefits to significant other. The word "gay" and the word "homosexual" are used nowhere in the description of the benefits and yet there they are extended as if in marriage but without any law whatsoever to support it. In my view, that's real class. They never discussed anyone's sexuality and yet they covered the situation without the need for a law. Their compassion is apparent as well as their discretion.

I understand your position, and even agree with some of it in the present--but man, that's ahistorical. Many of the states felonized homosexual acts right from the beginning--i.e. a century before the Republican Party even existed.

And yes, marriage--and all of our culture and civilation, really--actually is fragile at the margins. If you doubt this, go visit any conveniently local inner-city hellhole for a reminder.

"And yes, marriage--and all of our culture and civilation, really--actually is fragile at the margins. If you doubt this, go visit any conveniently local inner-city hellhole for a reminder."

I live in the midst of several inner-city hellholes and certainly agree with your assessment. But it's not the proper function of the federal government to prop up fragile moral institutions. The morality of a culture can't be engineered by State force.

"What's the big deal about the word marriage? If I understand jr, they're saying that the gays can have all of the legal aspects of marriage, but just not the word."

The problem isn't the word marriage. The main problem is whether the government can redefine a universal human institution against the will of its citizens. Where exactly did we give the government, especially the judiciary, the power to do this?

1jpb: Thanks for the information on Washington State. To be clear, if I own a house there and want to add my brother and sister will I not have to pay the excise tax. They aren't gay if that makes a difference.